- (1.) Counsel appearing for the petitioner is challenging the order, dated 26th December. 2011 (Annexure 10 to the memo of the petition), vide which the petitioner had been repatriated from his department of deputation, i.e. Rural Works Department to the Road Construction Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, i.e. the parent department. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was on deputation in the Rural Works Department of Jharkhand, parent department of which is Road Construction Department and as the petitioner had made complaint against one Contractor alleging corruption as also against an Executive Engineer, this order, dated 26th December, 2012, was passed with a malafide intention. Moreover, the petitioner was placed on deputation vide order, dated 28th February, 2009 (Annexure 1 to the memo of the petition) and the order of repatriation was passed in the month of December, 2011, i.e. after only three years while as per stipulation of a general Circular, dated 31st January, 2011 (Annexure 2 to the memo of the petitioner) issued by the Road Construction Department regarding deputation, the petitioner should have been allowed to continue in the department of deputation for six years. It is, therefore, prayed that the order, dated 26th December, 2011 may be quashed and set aside.
(2.) Having heard counsel for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no ground to entertain this petition mainly for the following facts and reasons: (I) The present petitioner has been working as a Junior Engineer The Road Construction Department, Govt. of Jharkhand from where he was deputed in the Rural Works Department in the State of Jharkhand. It further appears from the facts of the case that the petitioner was repatriated to Road Construction Department by the impugned order dated 26th December, 2011. (II). It is pertinent to mention here that there is no legally vested right in the petitioner to continue in Rural Works Department nor there is statutory duty vested in the respondents to continue the petitioner at the Rural Works department of the State of Jharkhand. Thus, there is no violation of statutory duty, whatsoever, by the respondents. (III) The petitioner has filed some complaint against some contractor as also against the Executive Engineer, but that does not mean that there is malafide intention on the part of the aforesaid officer in passing the impugned order. The order is passed by Engineer- in - Chief - cum - Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary. Thus, the impugned order has been passed by a very highly placed officer and apparently, there is no complaint made by the petitioner against the Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary, who has passed the repatriation order. Therefore, the allegation of malafide against the officer, who has passed the impugned order was not accepted by this Court. (IV) Regarding submission of counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was put on deputation in the month of February, 2009 in the Rural Works Department and he has been repatriated in the month of December, 2011, i.e. after a short period of three years, it is clear that though there is a short period of deputation, but that does not mean that the respondents can not repatriate the petitioner after a short period as the circular at Annexure 2, which the Counsel for the petitioner relied upon, appears directory and not mandatory in nature. There is no statutory right vested in the petitioner that once he is on deputation, there is a minimum period for which he shall be continued on deputation. It all depends upon the public need and administrative exigencies. (V) Further, on perusal of the impugned order at Annexure 10, it appears to be a joint order of transfer/repatriation of approximately two dozen Engineers.
(3.) Therefore, in these set of Circumstances, i.e. the impugned order, which is passed regarding as many as approximately two dozen employees; the fact that there is no legally vested right in the petitioner to continue at the department of deputation, since the circular at Annexure 2 is directory and not mandatory in nature as well as the fact that the petitioner has already resumed duty at his parental department as submitted by the counsel for the petitioner, there is no substance in the writ petition. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.;